American Society of Hirudotherapy

Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Thrombolysis with Tenecteplase in Patients with Wake-Up Branch Atheromatous Disease

Research article published in Translational stroke research (2026)

Last Updated: June 18, 2026Reviewed by: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Research reportSafety & Infection ControlZhu et al. · Translational stroke research, 2026

Abstract

Branch atheromatous disease (BAD), a subtype of acute ischemic stroke (AIS), is associated with a high risk of early neurological deterioration (END) and poor prognosis. Wake-up stroke (WUS), comprising 20%-30% of AIS cases, is typically excluded from thrombolysis because of unknown onset time. Using diffusion-weighted imaging/fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (DWI/FLAIR) mismatch, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of Tenecteplase (TNK) thrombolysis in patients with BAD-related WUS. We retrospectively recruited 1,062 patients from seven Zhengzhou hospitals between January 2021 and June 2025. The patients received either TNK (n = 338) or dual antiplatelet therapy (n = 724). Propensity score matching (PSM; 1:1, caliper 0.02) yielded 292 matched pairs. Early neurological changes were evaluated using the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), and 90-day outcomes were evaluated using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). After PSM, TNK significantly reduced the risk of END (odds ratio [OR] = 0.425, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.262-0.689; P < 0.001). Patients treated with TNK were more likely to achieve good functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] 0-1 and 0-2) with fewer poor outcomes (mRS ≥ 4). There were no significant differences in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, other bleeding events, or mortality among the groups. DWI/FLAIR mismatch-guided TNK thrombolysis appears to overcome the limitations of an unknown onset time in WUS and may counteract the progressive pathophysiology of BAD. TNK intravenous thrombolysis may be a safe and effective treatment for patients with wake-up BAD and DWI/FLAIR mismatches.

Abstract sourced from PubMed (NCBI) for the cited record. See the original publication for the authoritative version.

Publication typeJournal Article
Indexed MeSH termsHumansMaleFemaleAgedFibrinolytic AgentsRetrospective StudiesMiddle AgedIschemic StrokeTenecteplaseThrombolytic TherapyTreatment OutcomeDiffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Summary

Peer-reviewed research on safety and infection-control considerations relevant to leech therapy and anticoagulation. Indexed in PubMed and verified against the NCBI record.

Why This Matters for Hirudotherapy

This retrospective multicenter study compared tenecteplase (TNK) thrombolysis against dual antiplatelet therapy in 1,062 patients with wake-up stroke from branch atheromatous disease, using DWI/FLAIR mismatch to select patients of unknown onset time; after 1:1 propensity-score matching (292 pairs), TNK significantly reduced early neurological deterioration (OR 0.425, 95% CI 0.262-0.689; P < 0.001) and improved 90-day functional outcomes with no significant increase in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. For ASH this sits in the broader thrombolytic/antithrombotic landscape that frames why leech-derived anticoagulants are studied: it documents how a fibrin-targeting agent is weighed for benefit versus bleeding, the same risk-benefit axis that governs any hirudin- or hementin-class molecule. The caveat is substantial: this is observational (non-randomized) data from a single region and does not involve leeches or leech-derived compounds, so it is contextual background only, not evidence for hirudotherapy.

Citation

Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Thrombolysis with Tenecteplase in Patients with Wake-Up Branch Atheromatous Disease.

Zhu et al. · Translational stroke research, 2026

Added to ASH library: May 28, 2026 · Site last updated: June 18, 2026

This website provides educational information and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment recommendations. Medicinal leech therapy carries clinically meaningful risks and should be performed only by qualified clinicians under institutionally approved protocols. FDA 510(k) clearance for medicinal leeches is limited to specific indications; investigational and off-label discussions are labeled accordingly. For patient-specific guidance, consult a qualified healthcare provider.